The Westbrook Health Department has ordered the removal of two exterior HVAC units and any other positive heat supply at 19 1st Avenue, directing the owner to comply by Nov. 1, 2025, after concluding the renovations converted a seasonal cottage into a year-round residence without required approvals.

At a Sept. 3 administrative appeal hearing, WestbrookHealth Director Zachary Faiella said a March 2021 site visit identified the exterior HVAC units, a deck expansion and gas equipment. Faiella testified the townissued the public-health order because the changes met the public health codedefinition of a building conversion and because soil tests showed the property could not support the intensified septic demand that year-round occupancy would entail. "The Connecticut public health code authorizes me to issue public health orders to, abate pollution," Faiella said under oath.

Why it matters: The dispute turns on whether the HVAC installation constitutes a new positive heat supply that triggers B100A permitting and soil-testing requirements. If so, town officials say the property's septic system and soil conditions are insufficient for year-round use and any conversion requires remedial work or an exception before winterization can be permitted.

Appellants, represented by Attorney Cassella, told the hearing the HVACs replaced older electric wall heaters and that the house already had the three elements the code lists for a nonseasonal dwelling: a positive heating source, frost-protected water, and insulation. "This is not a because this property is already winterized," Cassella said in opening argument, arguing the permit denial to install the split units was improper.

At the hearing, contractor Gregory Chandler and owner Scott Tierney described the renovation work. Chandler confirmed he filed a B100A application for an addition and that the words "property is seasonal use only" appearing on the town form were not his handwriting or the owners'. Tierney said he bought the house in August 2018, that it originally had electric wall heaters in most rooms and that he removed them when installing split-unit HVACs in 2019.

Town sanitarian Leigh Archer explained the soil test excavation: she said the upper layers included topsoil and modeled fill and that the first 34 inches included fill and original organic peat beneath, concluding "no unsaturated naturally occurring receiving soil" existed within the first 18 inches required by the health code. Archer testified the propertyhas a 1,000-gallon septic tank with roughly 300 square feet of effective leaching area, while a three-bedroom residence typically requires about 495 square feet. "Any changes, additions, etcetera ... that would trigger that increase for the septic system," Archer said, "would have to be addressed."

The town relied on three documentary sources at the hearing: the assessor's field card that listed the house style as "cottage," Connecticut Water customer records that designated the property SEA (seasonal), and the 10-year consumption table showing near-zero winter use before 2020 and a marked increase afterward. Faiella described that change as a "very large" post-2020 increase in use compared with pre-2020 years.

The hearing raised legal and interpretive questions. Appellants stressed that a replacement of an existing heat source should not be treated as a new "provision" of heat under the conversion definition, while town witnesses said the code's language and their practice treat an added or upgraded positive heat supply as a structural or mechanical change that can enable year-round occupancy and thereby increase anticipated daily discharge (design flow).

What happened next: Counsel debated whether Connecticut Water guidance and other utility documentation could be entered; the hearing officer paused the proceeding to allow counsel to exchange exhibits and took a 10-minute break to resolve objections. No final decision was announced at the hearing; the appeal record will be used by the hearing officer to rule on whether to uphold, modify or vacate the town's public health order.

Reporting note: Quotes and technical findings in this article come from sworn testimony and exhibits introduced at the Sept. 3 administrative appeal hearing. The Department of Public Health (state-level) and Connecticut Water were referenced in testimony and documents shown at the hearing.